Monday Mailbag - 4/2/2012
Here is The Daily Chomp's Monday Mailbag answering your questions sent in by Twitter (tweet @SanJoseSharks using #AskSJS), Facebook, or email.
What is the rule about penalties expiring when a goal is scored during a 4-on-4 situation?
- Nicole G.
TDC: In the video posted above, you can see a highlight of Joe Pavelski scoring a goal when the Sharks and Stars were each using just four skaters on the ice. This was a result of a penalty served by each squad where the infractions were seperate and not coincidental. Stars forward Vernon Fiddler was off the ice for a Boarding penalty called at 8:56 of the second period. On the ensuing power play opportunity, Sharks forward Logan Couture was called for Interference on the Goalkeeper at 9:05.
Thirty-four seconds later Pavelski scored during the 4-on-4 play. NHL rules on expiration criteria for minor penalties states that because there was no man-advantage during the play, both penalties continue to be served and 4-on-4 play remains. Here is an excerpt from the official rule book (Rule 16 - Minor Penalties) :
Minor penalty expiration criteria:
(i) Is the team scored against short-handed?
(ii) Is the team scored against serving a minor penalty on the clock?
The play did not meet the criteria and play resumed the same as it was before Pavelski's goal. To see a list of other possible scenerios related to man-advantage and short handed play, see this detailed table.
Why was a goal awarded in the Ducks game when Boyle crashed in to the empty net?
- Robin B.
TDC: With the Sharks trailing by one goal late on March 28 in Anaheim, Antti Niemi was pulled off the ice for an extra attacker. On the scoring play, the Ducks had gained possesion of the puck and eventually got a shot off on the Sharks empty net when Dan Boyle collided with the net in a fleeting attempt to prevent the goal. In doing so, Boyle dislodged the net from its moorings and the puck was deflected up and out of play. Rule 63.6 of the NHL Official Rules provides the referee with authority to determine if the goal would have been scored if the net had not been displaced. It was the referee's determination that the goal post had been displaced deliberately by Boyle, so the goal was awarded. Below is the rule as it reads from the NHL rule book:
63.6 Awarded Goal - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions a defending player or goalkeeper, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.
When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.
The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal.